Dec. 7
OHIO:
Mitigation specialist to come in for death penalty case
Steven Mages, the man accused of killing his girlfriend and unborn child in
Goshen Twp., appeared in court on Nov. 29.
Mages' defense scored something of a win from Clermont County Common Pleas
Judge Victor Haddad, who ruled that the court would pay for a mitigation expert
on behalf of the defense.
On Aug. 30, Mages, who is 38, allegedly killed his 35-year-old girlfriend
Natasha Marie Wilson. He faces 3 counts of aggravated murder, all of which
include the death penalty specification.
That fact, that it's a capital case, is something Gregory W. Meyers, 1 of the
defense attorneys for Mages, used as a selling point at the hearing on Nov. 29:
he's the one in the courtroom with capital case experience, not Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney Scott O'Reilly and not even the judge himself.
"I want to respectfully argue this because I understand as fate would have it,
I've litigated by default and part by design an awful lot of capital trial
cases and that???s not the case for other lawyers in the room," he said.
Stephen Haynes, the director of the public defender's office in Clermont County
since 2015, is also defending Mages.
A mitigation expert acts as the criminal defense team's researcher and
investigator.
O'Reilly argued to Haddad that he saw no statutory precedent for the court
paying for the defense's mitigation expert.
Meyers saw it differently, however.
To Meyers, it's fundamental in capital cases to get a mitigation expert whose
skillset differs from a criminal investigator.
State council has "most of the aces" right now, Meyers said, so their duty as
the defense is "effective investigation preparation for litigation," which
entails that expert.
O'Reilly, holding up a large stack of papers up to the judge, called what the
defense had provided a "large tome."
"What it's lacking is any actual precedent. This is literally propaganda of
what a mitigation expert is," O'Reilly said.
A curricula vitae, otherwise known as a resume, has yet to be provided,
O'Reilly added.
O'Reilly said there's just no precedent for taxpayers or the state to fund the
mitigation expert.
"I don't know what that is," O'Reilly said. "They have yet to cite what kind of
expertise this individual is going to have."
In essence, O'Reilly sees the defense as asking for a "blank check" from the
state.
Haddad then turned to Meyers and asked him to define what a mitigation expert
is.
"This is transparently not a request for a blank check," Meyers said.
A mitigation specialist, as Meyers calls it, said that role requires "soft
tissue-type skills."
"When we have a mitigation specialist whose training is designed to equip them
with the human talent, skills and judgment necessary to uncover and unveil the
depths of the background of our client in ways that criminal investigators do
not," he said. "It has more to do with a social worker approach."
It's about sitting in the room of a client's family and uncovering those
skeletons in the closet, Meyers said, which isn't the skillset of a seasoned
criminal investigator.
"It's an entirely different orientation," Meyers said.
Meyers added that it's "reasonably necessary" for the defense to be funded by
the court in regards to a litigation investigation.
"Likewise, this is a capital case. They've put Mr. Mages life on the line. We
are entitled to a thorough investigation," he said.
Meyers said this is particularly necessary for a client like his with a history
of mental illness.
The mitigation expert will be Paul Burke, who is listed under the trial
services division of Ohio Public Defender's office.
Burke has experience with death penalty cases, Meyers said.
The court has also decided that Mages is indigent (meaning, he's poor), which
plays into Haddad's decision to rule in the defense's favor in allowing the
court to pay for this specialist.
"I will agree with the state that I don't know exactly what Mr. Burke does
because I've never done of these before and I know you haven't either [speaking
to O'Reilly], but...I will assume, as an officer of the court, that if you say
he has some history and experience and training in these types of cases, I'm
going to take your word for it," Haddad said to Meyers. "Death is different."
It's super due process, Haddad said.
Burke will be paid at $35 an hour. For now, Haddad has approved a $3,500
ceiling for Burke's services.
"I realize the state is concerned about the taxpayers, but I think anybody that
knows me there's nobody tighter than me about doling out money for anybody,"
Haddad said.
The next hearing is scheduled before Haddad on Dec. 21 at 1 p.m in Court Room
201.
(source: Clermont Sun)
IOWA:
It's just plain wrong
It just had to come up: Republicans want to revive the death penalty in Iowa
during the next legislative session. It saddens us that Iowa would even
consider lowering itself again into barbarism, state-sponsored murder. Thirst
for revenge is a powerful force in politics. That's what drives capital
punishment, those Old Testament eye-for-eye rules. We forget the New
Commandment, to love one another, because it is so much harder.
Let's forget religion for a moment. We will come back to that. Let's think of
the practical aspects:
-- Juries can be wrong. Northwestern University journalism students in Chicago
discovered several death-row cases where the inmates were innocent, often done
in by crooked cops or prosecutors. Who wants the execution of an innocent man
or woman on the conscience?
-- Minorities are the victims. In Iowa especially, blacks have an inordinately
high share of the prison population. It has drawn the attention of the Iowa
Supreme Court, especially in how juries are selected. Capital punishment is
skewed against minority communities.
-- People who commit murder in Iowa, unless they are juveniles, are sentenced
to life in prison without possibility of parole. If it's revenge you're after,
Fort Madison may be worse than the hell to which the executioner assigns the
convict.
-- When you execute your only witness you foreclose important information
about a threat to society that the convict may disclose from behind bars in
hopes of getting better treatment. Why would we ever want to execute a
terrorist who could give up information even 10 years later?
Now back to the moral part:
It's wrong.
Republicans profess to be pro-life. We are pro-life. Almost all forms of
abortion are morally wrong, as we were taught, but it is not something we are
capable of legislating. As a people, we are hopelessly divided on this issue.
There is no political solution in a pluralistic society, which is why the
Supreme Court had to decide the issue. It is hard for us to see how you go back
or craft penalties. We accept that as a tragedy and move on to the areas we can
defend: Capital punishment is a grave evil that can be stopped by the political
process. There is no exception to its nature as a wrong - there is no saving
the life of the mother in an execution. Capital punishment is wrong in every
instance.
When half the children in Iowa are born into Medicaid - that is, they are born
poor - and they are denied a full education and they are subjected to every
sort of depravation we can hurl at them, is that pro-life? And then, when they
turn out all bad, we electrocute them or drug them to death or shoot them in
the head - Which is cruelest and most unusual? - because they are a threat to
or a burden on society.
Civilized societies do not use capital punishment. Nations like Iran do. It
solves nothing. It makes the remaining victims feel no better, it does not
bring closure. It brings more horror and less respect for life. If we value
life, prove it. Drop the capital punishment talk now.
(source: Editorial, The Storm Lake Times)
OKLAHOMA:
Gov. Brad Henry and Andy Lester: OBA and DAC lead the way on death penalty
reforms
When we agreed to be co-chairmen of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review
Commission, we viewed it as an opportunity to better understand a difficult
issue. The bipartisan commission included 5 women and 6 men representing
diverse legal, educational and government experience. Together, we spent more
than a year analyzing, debating and hearing from law enforcement, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, judges, families of murder victims, those wrongfully
convicted and others.
In April, the commission released a nearly 300-page report and announced more
than 45 recommendations. Our report concludes that our state's death penalty
system is not working, and without major changes, Oklahoma risks executing
innocent people.
After the release of our report, commissioners traversed the state, meeting
with different groups that have the power to act on our recommendations and
with those who would be affected by them. Now, in the months after the
commission outlined a way forward, we are hopeful. We already have seen 2 major
stakeholders - the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and the District Attorneys
Council (DAC) - take up our recommendations and commit to reforms.
After our meeting with the OBA, we were pleased to see it quickly take action.
OBA President Linda Thomas created a task force to address standards for
defense counsel in death penalty cases. The 11-member task force, headed by
Oklahoma City attorney Mack Martin, crafted a framework for minimum standards
of practice for the capital defense bar.
The OBA House of Delegates passed these standards, and the Rules of
Professional Conduct Committee is now drafting rules for capital defense
lawyers consistent with these standards. We look forward to the submission of
the rules to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. If the court adopts the rules, they
will have the force and effect of the law.
As the commission noted in its report, "effective defense counsel acts as a
safeguard against wrongful convictions (and) requires specialized training and
experience in the complex legal framework that governs capital cases." We are
so pleased that the OBA, too, understands the importance of a qualified lawyer
in death penalty cases.
Along with the OBA, the DAC has also undertaken recommendations from the
commission. Notably, this summer, it provided training on common causes of
wrongful convictions. The DAC also is considering the formation of a best
practices committee. We encourage the DAC to form this committee and use it to
its greatest extent to ensure the best-trained prosecutors are in our
courtrooms.
The commission took on an issue of immense proportions and we know our
recommendations are not small asks of the legal system. It took the commission
more than a year to develop our recommendations, and we do not expect that they
will be implemented overnight. However, the actions taken by the OBA and DAC
are essential steps toward reforming Oklahoma's death penalty system. It is our
hope that these actions have laid the foundation for future efforts from these
groups and others in the legal system.
We are encouraged that two major players in Oklahoma's capital punishment
system are working to improve standards and training for defense lawyers and
prosecutors. Without effective lawyers on both sides, we cannot guarantee that
our system is just and fair. Most important, we cannot ensure that no innocent
person is put to death. We are gratified that the commission's work is having
an impact and our report continues to serve as a resource for Oklahomans.
(source: Brad Henry served as governor of Oklahoma from 2003-2011. Andy Lester
is a partner in the law firm Spencer Fane LLP. Both served as co-chairmen of
the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission----Tulsa World)
CALIFORNIA:
Livermore man's death sentence upheld for rape-murder
A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld the death sentence of a Livermore
man for raping and murdering a woman he met at a bar in Contra Costa County in
1986.
The court said it wouldn't 2nd-guess state court findings that jurors hadn't
been tainted when a prosecutor reminded them that California voters had
overwhelmingly approved capital punishment.
The trial of Guy Rowland was marred by defense attorneys' errors in addition to
the prosecutor???s improper comments, but a mistake-free trial would probably
have reached the same result in light of Rowland's "monstrous criminal
history," said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The court said it was required by federal law to be "highly deferential" to the
state Supreme Court ruling that upheld Rowland's death sentence.
Rowland was 24 when he met Marion "Geri" Richardson, 31, at a bar in Byron in
March 1986. An off-duty bartender testified that Richardson brushed off
Rowland's advances, stayed in the bar after he left and later headed for home
in her car.
According to medical testimony, Rowland beat Richardson, raped her, then choked
her to death after forcing her to swallow a potentially lethal dose of
methamphetamine. He then drove her body to Half Moon Bay and dumped it in the
ocean. He later asked his girlfriend to help him clean the victim's blood and
hair from his truck, but she called the police, the court said.
Rowland had recently served a prison sentence for kidnapping 2 13-year-old
girls and raping 1 of them in 1980, the court said. Prosecutors also presented
evidence of uncharged beatings and rapes, including assaults of his stepsister
and another woman less than a week before the murder.
According to defense evidence, Rowland's family was abusive, his mother twice
attempted to drown him in the bathtub as a baby, and he had been diagnosed with
several mental disorders. One witness, psychiatrist Hugh Ridlehuber, conducted
a brief evaluation and testified that Rowland was still suffering the effects
of his traumatic childhood, but said after the trial that he probably would
have presented evidence of brain damage if he had been given time for a more
thorough analysis.
In Wednesday's ruling, the court said Rowland's trial lawyers had been
ineffective by failing to contact Ridlehuber earlier or prepare him adequately.
But under the deferential standard of federal law, the state's high court
"could have reasonably concluded" that the verdict would have been the same
because of the brutality of the crime and Rowland's record, Judge John Owens
said in the 3-0 ruling.
The court had a similar assessment of the prosecutor's comments to the jury in
closing arguments at the penalty phase - that California's voters had
overwhelmingly approved the death penalty and had removed 3 state Supreme Court
justices from office in 1986 for overturning death sentences.
"We disapprove of the prosecutor's comments," Owens said, but they did not
"minimize the jury's responsibility" to reach is own conclusions.
Michael Levine, one of Rowland's appellate lawyers, said he was disappointed by
the ruling and would probably ask the full appeals court for a rehearing.
(source: San Francisco Chronicle)
USA:
The Supreme Court has the chance to end the death penalty. They should take it
There is no question that Abel Hidalgo has committed some awful crimes. As a
gang member in Arizona, he accepted $1,000 in 2001 to murder auto repair shop
owner Michael Cordova and also killed another man, Jose Rojas, who showed up at
the shop at the wrong time. It took a year and an informant's tip to lead
police to Hidalgo, who by then was in federal prison for the drug-related
murders of 2 women (1 of them a former girlfriend) on a Native American
reservation in Idaho.
Hidalgo is just the kind of person from whom society needs to be protected, and
he should be locked away. Few would disagree about that. A more complicated
question - even for those who support capital punishment - is whether an
Arizona jury was right to sentence him to death.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states must design their capital
punishment statutes so that only truly egregious crimes are punished by death.
But Hidalgo argues that Arizona has added so many "aggravating circumstances" -
factors that turn a run-of-the-mill killing into a capital crime - that pretty
much any murder in Arizona can now qualify for the death penalty.
Hidalgo's argument circles back to two key Supreme Court decisions in the
1970s. The 1972 Furman decision struck down the death penalty entirely on the
grounds that it was being applied so arbitrarily that it violated the 8th
Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments." States then
began rewriting their death statutes to try to reduce their arbitrary
application, and in 1976 the court ruled that the death penalty could resume in
states with statutes limiting the death penalty to particularly atrocious
crimes.
Now Hidalgo argues that Arizona's list of death-eligible crimes is so expansive
that it's entire capital punishment system is unconstitutional, and he has a
point. If nearly every murder can be eligible for a death sentence, then the
system has swung back to arbitrariness - leaving the decision whether to seek
capital punishment up to the whims of prosecutors, and its application to
juries. On that, Arizona shares some common ground with California, which has 3
dozen "special circumstances" that can make a murderer subject to the death
penalty.
The Times opposes the the death penalty under all circumstances. We take a
"Green Eggs and Ham" approach - we don't like it here, there or anywhere. But
if states are going to engage in such a barbaric practice, they must at least
follow the Constitution, and we hope the Supreme Court accepts the case and, at
the very least, strikes down such broad definitions of death-eligible crimes.
But Hidalgo raises another, even more challenging issue and could conceivably
lead to an even more radical decision. The death penalty, Hidalgo argues, is
inherently unconstitutional because the nation has been unable to use it
without descending into an unreliable system in which the poor and minorities
are disproportionately affected, and too many innocent people have been
sentenced to death. (There have been 117 death row exonerations since 1989.)
The problems with the convictions range from prosecutorial misconduct to
erroneous witness identifications to confessions gained through coercion or by
playing on the inadequacies of the intellectually disabled. Exonerations often
don't come until years after conviction. Meanwhile, executions often occur so
long after the underlying crime was committed that they serve no penological
purpose. So far this year, 23 people have been executed after spending an
average of 19 1/2 years on death row.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer invited this sort of review in his dissent in the
2015 Glossip decision upholding use of the drug midazolam in lethal injections.
"Rather than try to patch up the death penalty's legal wounds one at a time,"
he wrote, "I would ask for full briefing on a more basic question: whether the
death penalty violates the Constitution." Whether Hidalgo's case is the one
that will finally get the court to recognize the fatal flaws in the death
penalty is hard to say. But we hope so. It's a medieval system too fraught with
human error to be relied upon for determining whether someone should live or
die.
(source: Editorial, Los Angeles Times)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
